[DigeratiPrime]

http://www.bittorrent.com/Plone/press/bitt...uires-utorrent/

Quote

San Francisco — December 7, 2006 — BitTorrent, Inc., home to the world's leading peer-assisted digital content delivery platform, today announced it has acquired µTorrent, a lightweight and efficient implementation of the BitTorrent protocol.

[Zxian]

Oy....

[XPero]

Ouch

[bledd]

wow

hope they only improve it

[ripken204]

but why
there goes utorrent...

This post has been edited by ripken204: 07 December 2006 - 09:32 PM

[CptMurphy]

Why am I thinking that this will cause Bittorrent to want to charge for the client?

[EchoNoise]

oh dear gawd.... thank you for transmission

Transmission is a great bittorrent client

[jcarle]

Noooooooo........

Damnit. I actually enjoy uTorrent as it is. Let's hope BitTorrent won't scrap uTorrent or make it bloated.

[DigeratiPrime]

btw here is a link to the main topic on the utorrent forum
http://forum.utorren....php?id=17278#1

[LLXX]

The official BitTorrent client is open-source...

...if they open uTorrent that would be awesome.

Either way I was planning to write my own torrent client anyway... after I finish this download manager I'm currently working on

[ironfist241]

Anyone else feel this is like Microsoft acquiring nLite? Just dont get it.. its like it has gone full circle..

[magicfly]

i can imagine the end of another wonderful program just cause $$ affairs

[CptMurphy]

ironfist241, on Dec 8 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

Anyone else feel this is like Microsoft acquiring nLite? Just dont get it.. its like it has gone full circle..

[OT]
M$ bought out nlite? Sorry to go OT.
[/OT]


Man, lots of those users on the utorrent forum are p***ED.

This post has been edited by CptMurphy: 08 December 2006 - 06:23 PM

[dAbReAkA]

i hope for 3 things:
1. utorrent wont go opensource
2. it wont get any s***, DRM, blahblah
3. it wont get bloated

[nospoon]

BitTorrent, Inc. is a for-profit company. They will probably adware it up. They won't go open source...who needs that when you already have the mainline client that is open. With this closed source, they'll try to capitalize on it. I say go download and hang onto the versions now before they change something.

Just look at Mark Russinovich selling out to MS. Just look what they did with all of his tools. They repacked it to become MS like.

IMHO, if you make a good product and it is free, release it open source. There's no reason to keep it closed. Your not making any money off of it, and you may as well contribute something to humanity.

A prime example is LightningUK's, and look what happened to the software now now. Didn't release the source into the wild, and he stepped down to the powers that be...if the source was out in the open, they couldn't have stopped it.

I'll just stick with their old version and never upgrade.

[dAbReAkA]

releasing utorrent as open source will let people easily create cheating mods out of it..

[LLXX]

nospoon, on Dec 9 2006, 03:53 AM, said:

IMHO, if you make a good product and it is free, release it open source. There's no reason to keep it closed. Your not making any money off of it, and you may as well contribute something to humanity.

Agreed. Better yet, make it public domain.

As for myself... tried uTorrent once and it worked reasonably well...

I just prefer BitComet since it has a few more features.

[jcarle]

nospoon, on Dec 9 2006, 03:53 AM, said:

Just look at Mark Russinovich selling out to MS. Just look what they did with all of his tools. They repacked it to become MS like.

Some tools, it doesn't change much, like Autoruns... but some have become ridiculous. Streams, for example, quadruple the executable file size, and you have to accept a EULA Window to use the DOS tool. Fun.

This post has been edited by jcarle: 09 December 2006 - 07:23 AM

[Biney59]

uTorrent was perfect the way it is.

[CoffeeFiend]

They already stated they won't go open source, but it will remain free (as in beer). And there will be a linux port at some point.

And while open source is not necessarily a bad thing, there ARE reasons to keep free programs closed! (dAbReAkA has a valid point)

Things like:
-your source code contains 3rd party's code, which you have no right to redisrtibute/open source
-perhaps you have IP or trade secret of some sort in there, and want to protect it (once you open source that, it more or less becomes everybody's - including your competitors'), be it to keep a competitive advantage or such
-you don't want people to fork your product/hard work, for one reason or another
-it makes it easier for hacker to find flaws to exploit
-often, the free product is only there as a "loss leader" or "first hit". Like say, the free versions of vmware. It's there to get people to use their products, and buy the very expensive versions the day they want/need the extra features. Open sourcing it would mean others could just implement what they need instead (or their competitors could likely even reuse some of their code to their advantage)
-your product may be free right now, but one may want to keep the option of eventually making it either non-free in the future, or keep the free version, but also make a commercial "premium" version
-your product may be only "partially free" in the first place (like dual licensed products, such as MySQL)
-a company's legal department (or some PHB) may not agree, for any reason at all
etc.

Open source is nice, but it's not always an option, nor the only option. I remember some networking app that used to be open source, but other people were making money from bundling it or using it in their own products (can't remember the name, but it was a fairly popular app). They ended up closing it, as they never gained anything from open sourcing it, and now they're the ones making money from selling appliances with it and such.

It's often impossible, or goes against a company's business model (they have to make money somehow to pay their employees)